The ironies of this argument. Isn't it the conservatives who are arguing
for a democracy? In Utah's same-sex marriage case, the conservatives keep
arguing that a majority of Utahns oppose same-sex marriage, therefore the ban
should stay intact. But it's the progressives who are making this argument
according to him? By the way, the Constitution was created to protect the rights
of minority groups. Therefore, it's the conservatives who are trying to
"invoke the right of the majority." Poor argument.

On the question of whether the rights of man precede government, the Declaration
of Independence is clear:

"We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed...."

Progressives pay lip service to the Declaration,
but ignore its plain meaning. The state exists for man, not man for the state.
Liberty is our natural right, and democracy our means of protecting it.

Nate said:"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That
to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed...."

You do realize
that as this was written, those truths and rights didn't include anyone but
white men with money, so it was just words when written, they sounded good, but
it would be over a hundred years before women would fight tooth and nail for one
of those self-evident truths.

"To enjoy privilege without abuse,
to have liberty without license, to possess power and steadfastly refuse to use
it for self-aggrandizement — these are the marks of high
civilization." UB

Another brilliantly articulated exposition of the central problem we have, and
probably always will have, as a nation.

I wish more people were
capable of understanding root problems as well as Mssrs. Will and Sandefur
obviously do. Our nation needs more of that understanding but we seem headed in
the opposite direction.

Commentaries on the Constitution gives us incite into the intent of the
Constitution. It says: "Let us never forget, that our constitutions
of government are solemn instruments, addressed to the common sense of the
people and designed to fix, and perpetuate their rights and liberties. They are
not to be frittered away to please the demagogues of the day. They are not to
be violated to gratify the ambition of political leaders. They are to speak in
the same voice now, and for ever. They are of no man’s private
interpretation. They are ordained the will of the people; and can be changed
only by the sovereign command of the people."

Some place along
the way, our elected political leaders have "frittered away to please the
demagogues of the day." Our Constitution is slowly fading into oblivion.

Interesting article. This article reaffirms to me what I have always believed;
Liberals believe rights and liberties emanate from the central government and
Conservatives believe rights and liberties are God given. Thus the role of
government for liberals is much different than how conservatives view the role
of government. In all of history the vast majority of humans have lived under
despot Kings, tyrants and dictators where the central government told the people
what they could or could not do. Along came our founding fathers who thought the
people should tell the government what it could or could not do, not the other
way around. In all of world history, this was truly exceptional. This is what is
meant by American exceptionalism and it is truly a Conservative idea!

Nate made the perfect argument for same sex marriage. The constitution endows us
with inalienable rights, which is to say we can't permit them to be usurped
even if we want to, such as in a popular vote.

I think this was a pretty good analysis of the two differing philosophies.

I know SOME will hate it... because it's George F. Will
after-all...

But I think IF you can pretend you don't know who
wrote it, and read it without pre-judging it... you will find it interesting and
helpful in understanding both sides.

I can see the position of both
sides. And I think we need BOTH sides. Like somebody said... you can't
fly very far with only one wing. But BOTH sides need to focus on supporting
each other... instead of tearing the other down and suppressing or dismissing
people with the differing point of view.

===

Try
re-reading it with a totally open mind (not even considering who wrote it)...
and see if you can't learn something about the other side... and what
motivates them...

I think if we understood some of the stuff he went
over here, we could understand each other better and get along a lot better.

Neither side is all good... and neither is all bad. We need both. We
should not focus on eradicating either.

It’s astonishing to see how the right-wingers like to label &
caricature those who disagree with them, so let’s clear up a few
things.

1.Our rights come from WE THE PEOPLE, exactly as the
Constitution implies - Jefferson in the Declaration (not a governing charter, by
the way) was simply expressing his Deist leanings. Our rights don’t come
from government any more than they come from a bronze-age god.

2.The
first three words of the Constitution implies democracy (Breyer is right) and
all the writings of the Founders talk about self-government. I don’t know
what self-government means if it doesn’t mean a democracy. And for you
purists, it’s a Republic simply because most people have day jobs (i.e.,
too busy to vote on every single issue).

3.Of course the Constitution
enshrines basic rights and liberties but it was never meant to create a country
that was ONLY interested in individual liberty – that form of government
is called anarchy.

Bottom line – the majority does rule and can
decide on whatever laws, regulations, economic systems, etc., unless expressly
forbidden by the Constitution.

@Tyler D,It always astonishes you to see how the RIGHT-wingers like to
label & caricature those who disagree with them...

Wow... did
you not see JoeBlow 5:04 a.m.'s lists of "TYPES" of people?

"The Birther types.The "shut down the IRS" types. The "legitimate rape" types. The Louie Gohmert types.". The "campaign with Ted Nugent" types.The "shoe thrown at
Hillary was staged" types"....

I was going to comment on his
labels and "TYPEs"... but decided not to (Until YOUR comment accusing
RIGHT-Wingers of labeling those they disagree with...

Can you show me
a similar list of labels from a "RIGHT-winger"??

===

I don't think you can. I haven't seen one here.But I have
from the LEFT-Wingers (LDS Liberal is notorious for his typing and labeling)...
but you totally overlook that and claim only RIGHT-wingers do it?

Maybe the blinders didn't let you see HIS list of labels and
"Types" for people he disagrees with...

===

Kinda
ironic I think... That no right-wingers have done that in this topic, and a
left-leaning guy did.. but you're disappointed in RIGHT-wingers for
labeling...

As usual George F Will is busily conflating ideas and attempting to undue the
will of the Founders, which was to give us a workable government. NO George. The
Declaration of Independence does NOT “set the framework” for reading
the Constitution. They are two separate documents designed to fulfill two very
separate functions. The Declaration justified our separation from Britain, and
the Constitution gives a plan of governance. Thus, when we talk about
government, we ALWAYS differ to the Constitution, NOT the Declaration of
Independence.

Who says Progressives are obsessed about majority rule
at the expense of Liberty? . . . Certainly not Progressives. Progressives
believe in PROGRESS that can be implemented through good governance.

NO George, Progressives don’t play down Liberty. Although Liberty can
exist in some cases without government, good governance actually enhances
Liberty by promoting and providing for the General Welfare, as specified in the
Constitution.

“The argument is between conservatives who say
American politics is basically about a condition, liberty, and progressives who
say it is about a process, democracy.” WRONG. Progressives aren’t
all that concerned with “process,” they are concerned with RESULTS.

When George Will caricatures people into an either/or
proposition of either believing in liberty or not, or…

When
Nate suggests Progressives (does that mean anyone who’s not a dittohead?)
believe we “exist for the state” or…

When samhill
agrees with Will’s caricature and laments that more of us don’t
“get it” or…

When Mountanman says “Liberals
believe rights and liberties emanate from the central government and
Conservatives believe rights and liberties are God given,” well…

I felt it was necessary to call these out and further make the case that
one can think Limbaugh, Beck, et al are nuts and still cherish our founding
documents & principles.

I for one do…

I’m
just tired of the right-wingers claiming to be the only ones that do, and
I’m especially tired of religious conservatives attempting to rewrite
history by constantly portraying our founding as establishing a Christian Nation
and implying the Founders were little more than divine puppets (this last is
admittedly a bit off topic… apologies).

Liberals believe rights and liberties emanate from the
central government and Conservatives believe rights and liberties are God given.

=========

I love when people tell me what I believe. I
have seen a very prevalent defense of "traditional marriage" on these
forums that "Marriage isn't a protected right in the Constitution"

To me it would seem this would indicate the opposite of what you
claim.

Regardless, these rights come from the very nature that we
are living, breathing, thinking, human beings. They are not given by any
earthly power; only protected. The Constitution cannot, and does not grant
rights, only ensures their protection; and in return we agree to forego some of
our rights. We the People are sovereign; We the people created the Constitution
that in turn creates a National Government, which in turn empowers State
Governments.

By that logic, any right not expressly surrendered to
the National Government, naturally reside with the People, or can be surrendered
to the State and local governments, if not already prohibited by the
Constitution, or Federal Law.